In re Jimmy P.

58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 632 (1996)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Jimmy P.

California Court of Appeal
58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 632 (1996)

Facts

The State of California (plaintiff) filed a wardship petition, alleging that Jimmy P. (defendant), a juvenile, committed theft. Jimmy admitted to theft and was adjudicated to be a ward. Jimmy was placed under state supervision in his mother’s custody, but after he was charged with burglary, he was placed in a group facility, where he refused to follow the rules. Jimmy was placed in a second group facility, St. John’s School for Boys (St. John’s), but continued to have serious behavioral problems, resulting in his expulsion. The state filed a petition for the court to determine an appropriate placement for Jimmy, alleging that St. John’s expelled Jimmy for (1) fighting, (2) refusing to follow the rules, (3) truancy, (4) inciting others’ truancy, and (5) attempting to incite gang activity. In a plea agreement, Jimmy admitted that he had been truant and that St. John’s expelled him for truancy. In exchange for Jimmy’s admission, the state agreed to strike the remaining allegations from the petition. In determining Jimmy’s placement, the court admitted into evidence Jimmy’s probation officer’s report, which incorporated St. John’s written expulsion report. The expulsion report discussed facts relating to the stricken allegations. The court relied on the expulsion report in finding that there was no less restrictive alternative than to place Jimmy in a juvenile correctional facility. Jimmy appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly considered factors relating to the stricken allegations.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Phelan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership